FACTS:

The case revolves around the murder of Gilbert Cadiente during a benefit dance in Barangay Mandalupang. Witnesses testified that Samuel Casido and Rudy Cadiente were involved in a fight with Gilbert Cadiente, with Casido fleeing the scene while Rudy Cadiente hurled a stone at Gilbert Cadiente and went home. Gilbert Cadiente was found wounded and eventually succumbed to his injuries.

During the trial, a witness named William Devila initially testified that he saw Samuel Casido stabbing Gilbert Cadiente. However, he later denied making a previous statement wherein he identified Casido as the assailant, claiming coercion by Rudy Cadiente.

SPO1 Jaime Tolete, the police officer who filed the criminal complaint, testified regarding the police blotter entries that identified Samuel Casido, Ruperto Balderas, and McKinely Diada as the individuals involved in the murder.

The trial court disregarded the defense's exhibits, which were affidavits retracting previous statements, ruling them inadmissible due to deficiencies in form and authentication.

The trial court acknowledged Ruperto Balderas' involvement in the attack but expressed disappointment that the other assailants were not identified and held accountable. The court also criticized the criminal justice system for not fully addressing the matter.

As a result, the court suggested that an additional inquiry be conducted by the Police and the office of the Provincial Prosecutor to identify the person or persons responsible for the fatal stab wound and incised wound that led to Cadiente's death, ensuring accountability.

ISSUES:

1. Whether accused-appellant can be held guilty of murder based on the evidence presented.

2. Whether the wound inflicted by accused-appellant was a fatal one.

3. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to establish the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Whether the accused-appellant can be found guilty based on treacherous participation without allegations of conspiracy in the information.

5. Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to establish the accused-appellant's guilt considering the lack of eyewitnesses and missing evidence.

6. Whether the defense of alibi is effective in absolving the accused-appellant of criminal liability.

7. Whether or not accused-appellant's alibi is credible and can be given weight.

8. Whether or not accused-appellant's attack on the victim constitutes attempted murder.

9. What penalty should be imposed on accused-appellant.

RULING:

1. The conviction of accused-appellant for murder cannot be based on the evidence presented. The only prosecution eyewitness testified that accused-appellant struck the victim with a cane knife, but the wound inflicted was not fatal. The prosecution failed to establish that accused-appellant's act resulted in the injury constituting the offense of murder.

2. The wound inflicted by accused-appellant, described as Wound No. 3, was not considered fatal by the attending physician. The possibility that this wound could have caused brain injury and contributed to the victim's death is remote.

3. The circumstantial evidence presented does not point with certainty to the accused-appellant as responsible for the fatal wound suffered by the victim, thereby failing to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Since the information did not allege conspiracy and there was no evidence of prior agreement or concerted action to kill the victim, the accused-appellant cannot be found guilty based on treacherous participation.

5. The prosecution's evidence, consisting of one eyewitness testimony and the absence of key evidence, is insufficient to establish the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The defense of alibi fails as the accused-appellant did not prove that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.

7. The Court found that there were contradictions and variances in accused-appellant's alibi, which made it less credible. The testimony of another witness also contradicted accused-appellant's claim. Therefore, accused-appellant's alibi cannot be given weight.

8. The Court determined that accused-appellant's attack on the victim constituted attempted murder. The weapon used and the location of the wound showed an intent to kill. Even though accused-appellant was not able to perform all the acts necessary to consummate the killing, his sudden and unprovoked attack from behind, which prevented the victim from defending himself, constituted treachery. This qualifies the crime to attempted murder.

9. The Court applied the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law to determine the penalty to be imposed on accused-appellant. The penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that for murder. In this case, the medium period of the penalty, which is prision mayor minimum, should be imposed as the maximum penalty. Accused-appellant is entitled to a minimum penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period as the penalty next lower than the penalty for attempted murder. Therefore, accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay costs.

PRINCIPLES:

• The conviction in a criminal case must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness or absence of the defense's evidence.

• In the absence of eyewitness testimony regarding the infliction of a fatal wound, circumstantial evidence may be considered to establish the culpability of the accused.

• Circumstantial evidence must meet the requirements of the Rules of Court for sufficiency, including the presence of more than one circumstance, proven facts from which inferences are derived, and the combination of all circumstances leading to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

• Speculation and probabilities cannot substitute for the required proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be inferred without evidence of prior agreement or concerted action.

• Eyewitness testimony, missing evidence, and gaps in the prosecution's evidence can affect the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.

• Alibi as a defense requires proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been present at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.

• The credibility of an alibi is diminished when there are contradictions and variances in the accused's testimony and when other witnesses contradict the accused's claim.

• An attack that is sudden, unprovoked, and made from behind constitutes treachery, which qualifies the crime to attempted murder.

• The penalty for an attempted crime is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony, in accordance with Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code.

• The medium period of the penalty should be imposed as the maximum penalty when there are no modifying circumstances.